The most common grievance is my writing this line: “Paul’s newsletters of the ’80s and ’90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracyland today is no mistake.”

For those who interested in learning more, this investigation by New Republic’s James Kirchick is instructive – though, I will say, I don’t find every lifted quote to be as egregious as the author.

One newsletter, right after the 1992 LA riots, just to give you a taste, says “order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

Julian Sanchez and David Weigel furthered the story with this piece in Reason which offers plenty of background for those interested in the ideological underpinnings of the newsletters and Paul.

This stood out for me:

Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001.

Because that paragraph brings me to this piece from the American Thinker that explores some of Paul’s unsavory support from neo-Nazis and Klan members.

There are a number of people claiming that I called Paul a racist and anti-Semite, which I did not. In fact, when I first learned the content of his newsletter, I wrote this (no link available).

Many of the vile pull quotes here, no matter what context they may have been in originally, have nothing to do libertarianism or freedom or some principled Constitutional stand on secession. They’re just racist and homophobic. Two: even if Paul didn’t know of their existence, he should have made it his business to know. It’s exceedingly difficult for me to believable that Paul was unaware of the content in a newsletter bearing his name. Judging from what I’ve read and heard from the man, I do not believe he wrote these things. But I’m not sure it matters. If George Bush or Hillary Clinton or any mainstream politician were even remotely associated with the sort of rambling anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist and paranoid text, they would be finished as legitimate voices. Paul should be finished, as well.

When asked if he was a racist at the time by CNN, Paul responded: “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.” That is as inane as a socialist claiming that he can’t be greedy because greed is an individualist idea. What makes that statement even more curious is that so many Ron Paul fans heap cultish — collective — adoration on a politician.

Nice try but your original piece wasn't dumb because you questioned Ron Paul's relationship with questionable characters. That's irrelevant — the man's voting record speaks for itself.No, a better refutation of your article can be done in less than 140 characters (click the link in my signature). You're a joke, and so is Reason mag.Regardless of whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, at least you know where he stands. That's not leadership? Say that about any other politician. This is precisely why we heap cultish praise upon him, but our praise is never collective, because most people don't agree with him 100%. How could it be collectivism if he was entirely accurate in stating “Our campaign attracts libertarians, anarchists, socialists, communists, liberals, and even a few conservatives!”

What does this have to do with anything? As a libertarian and a minority, I would rather have a racist president that does not aggress against me than a non-racist president that does aggress against me. Paul has been in congress since the 70's and has not promoted, nor voted for any legislation that can be classified as racist. Are you under the impression he has a 30 year plot to gain everyone's trust so he can become president and unleash a wrath of racist legislation?Racism is nothing more than a specific form of stupidity. I think nothing less of a guy that hates me for my race than I think of a guy that hates me for my politics. As long as they don't aggress against anyone, libertarianism has nothing to say about stupidity except that it's your right to be stupid.So, even if Paul is racist (he's not), he is still be a much better person than any non-racist who wants to aggress against me (for instance; Obama, an Obama voter, McCain, a McCain voter or even a Harsanyi who thinks aggression is justified to impose and maintain a price-fixing monopoly – central economic planning).

Are your lies intentional or merely the result of ignorance? Did you merely read and believe those old Reason magazine articles? If you had done any actual research, you could hardly have missed the extensive and point by point refutation of Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com, as well as personal testimonies of many many of Paul's longtime associates. Considering the other snarky generalities and misstatements in your article I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely erred from ignorance. If you honorably go back and do the research that should have preceded your article, you can at least redeem your reputation by showing some integrity; and maybe the lesson will help you also be more reliable in your future reportage.

Your shallow defense just made it worse. This dusty, tattered, debunked relic of an accusation died in 2007.”Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”- Ron PaulWhowoodathunk that a little ol' CPAC Straw Poll victory could get these cretins to re-scrape the bottom of the barrel for something to bring down the good doctor?Austin NAACP President Defends Ron Paulhttp://saintluke.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/naacp…

But he didn't write them. An independent editor who enlisted volunteers put out the newsletter while he was back in private medical practice. What I think is telling, is that after 30 years in the public eye the WORST people have to say is that he might be tolerant of people where others aren't tolerant. Because even if he knew of it (and I believe him that he didn't), that is all it would amount to.

Got any more 20+ year old guilts by association, unsourced and vaguely recollected conversations, innuendoes and lamely predictable attempts ('he's a WAYTHITH, I tell you!”) to distract our attention from the arguments, Mr H? Or is the cupboard now bare?For years there has been one defender of Constitutional principles in Congress who has never been on the take, never wavered and is now in the eyes of more and more young voters with a brain seen to have been right on the two key questions: this Republic's finances and its foreign policy,Against that appeal, that capacity to generate a buzz, the tired smears of neocon scfibblers count for less and less. Harsanyi is a parody of how the dying, palsied mainstream media try to stop us thinking outside the corporate warfare/welfare box.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.